Patent infringement litigation between Apple and Android-based handset makers is viewed as a positive for AAPL shareholders, who could benefit from the company's iPhone patent portfolio with licensing deals or a potential ban on Android devices.

Analyst Chris Whitmore with Deutsche Bank issued a note to investors on Monday offering his take on continued lawsuits between Apple and Android handset makers like Samsung, HTC and Motorola. He believes that the ultimate outcome of the litigation will add "significant value" for AAPL shareholders.

Whitmore sees two potential outcomes of the ongoing litigation, both of which are favorable to Apple. Either iPhone maker obtains a licensing fee for the sale of each Android device, or Apple could secure bans on some devices and take 25 percent market share from Android.

"Under the first scenario, we believe a $10 per (software) licensing deal would accrue roughly $35 per share in value to Apple stock price," he said. "Under the second scenario, we estimate the incremental value to Apple shareholders would be 7-8 (times) higher."

Based on Apple's current stock price, Whitmore believes investors will benefit from a "free call option on a potentially very lucrative income from IP litigation." He considers it a "high probability" that Apple will monetize that value with a licensing deal which is not currently priced into the company's market valuation.

"The upside potential associated with an outright win is so large we don't expect Apple to settle anytime soon -- particularly not for the $5-10 per unit number that has been speculated in the press," Whitmore said. He believes the litigation will continue well into 2013 in a "long, drawn out process."

While Apple has opted to continue its legal battles against Android, Microsoft has taken a different approach in reaching licensing deals with Android-based handset makers. It's been estimated that Microsoft receives $5 for the sale of every Android smartphone sold by HTC, while Microsoft also receives royalties from Samsung's Android smartphones.

But a potential licensing agreement obtained by Apple could be much more lucrative. One analysis detailed last month claimed that Apple could collect up to $10 in royalties for every Android device sold.

Similarly, Whitmore believes that Apple's more than 200 patents and patents pending related to multi-touch technology are "largely undervalued" on Wall Street. He also sees Apple obtaining $10 per Android handset if it wins in litigation, adding $35 incremental to the company's share price.

But licensing deals would leave a lot of potential money on the table. If Apple were to win outright and courts were to ban Android handsets or severely limit the features of Android, he sees "enormous" financial benefits for Apple, potentially adding $261 to the company's stock price.

Okay, so now we have one analyst saying the patent thing could hurt shareholders and another saying it could help shareholders.

Apparently, as it turns out, all analysts are biased, all journalists are biased, all facts can be spun any way you want to to produce the results you desire. I had suspected this for years but was too gullible to accept it. Silly me.

I tried for a while to follow all this patent stuff using that blog by Florian Muller (sp?), who generally seems better informed and more sensible than most of the other people who comment on patent issues. But it seems to me that even he really doesn't have any idea how this is going to turn out.

I've come to the conclusion that if anybody truly knows with any confidence what's going to happen with these patent suits, they are not talking in public about it. Corollary: everyone who talks in public about this stuff has no idea what they're talking about.

The only little thought I have that makes me think Apple has more to gain than to lose is that they wouldn't be pursuing such an aggressive strategy otherwise. When Jobs was in charge, we could have imagined that this was all a personal thing without regard to probabilities of winning. But I suspect Cook is a guy who is going to do things by the numbers. If Apple starts looking for out of court settlements, we can infer that Cook has decided the chances don't look good for big wins. But if Apple sticks with their aggressive strategy, I'll conclude that Cook (+ apple lawyers) really think they can win, and they are probably the people in the best position to make that perdition (doesn't mean they'll be right, of course).

Okay, so now we have one analyst saying the patent thing could hurt shareholders and another saying it could help shareholders.

Apparently, as it turns out, all analysts are biased, all journalists are biased, all facts can be spun any way you want to to produce the results you desire. I had suspected this for years but was too gullible to accept it. Silly me.

Like any other source, you need to look at the whole picture. Not all sources (and frankly precious few anymore) will report the entire picture. You don't gain pages hits by being truthful, unbiased and objective - the unfortunate reality of blogging, internet ubquity, and lowering the bar on "journalism". Moreover if this analyst has his clients long on APPL, then he is going to (within the actual capacity of the stock and what if any few professional ethical standards are required) reinforce any net advantages to corporate action, and downplay any negatives. In reality (which in and of itself doesn't pull in many page hits), the end result of the litigation scene will be played out over the next 5-7 years, which is longer than most people ever care to be interested in something.

The litigation approach, is simply now a part of corporate strategy in negotiating licensing and IP ownership/usage. Is it right, on the face of it, perhaps not. But the days of captains of industry sitting down and meeting face to face to negotiate resource sharing is long past if they actually ever existed at all.

Meantimes it keeps page hits coming in on sites like this and gives those of us with interest something to argue about *grin*

If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one

Okay, so now we have one analyst saying the patent thing could hurt shareholders and another saying it could help shareholders.

Apparently, as it turns out, all analysts are biased, all journalists are biased, all facts can be spun any way you want to to produce the results you desire. I had suspected this for years but was too gullible to accept it. Silly me.

There is a third outcome: the smartphone makers circumvent the licences

And put out reduced-functionality phones?

Because the only other option is for them to create their own unique implementation of the stuff being infringed, and if it was possible for them to do that, they would have already DONE it to avoid this.

Because the only other option is for them to create their own unique implementation of the stuff being infringed, and if it was possible for them to do that, they would have already DONE it to avoid this.

There really hasn't been any dire need so far has there? Not a single infringement case between Apple and any Android vendor has been settled yet. It's not even certain how many patents being claimed will even hold up to re-examination, much less infringed. I know there's lots of claims and accusations being bandied about on both sides, but nothing settled on any of the legal fronts as for whether anyone has actually "stolen" anyone's IP.

There really hasn't been any dire need so far has there? Not a single infringement case between Apple and any Android vendor has been settled yet. It's not even certain how many patents being claimed will even hold up to re-examination, much less infringed. I know there's lots of claims and accusations being bandied about on both sides, but nothing settled on any of the legal fronts as for whether anyone has actually "stolen" anyone's IP.

And by the time the cases come to light and get settled, the technology being sued over is years old and more than likely has been life-cycled to something better or can easily be circumvented via software updates. If I have an HTC phone that has infringing IP, and HTC issues a patch to circumvent the settlement, who says I have to update?

Found it here. Your version isn't precise but more to the point. I'm going to use it from now on. Reminds me of what my stats prof told me "There are three kinds of liars: liars, damn liars and statisticians."

This type of discussion really scares me; patents shouldn't be worth as much as half of Apple's market cap. We are breeding lawyers rather than inventors, and that is a dangerous trend.

I don't think that's obvious. I think that as a society we want there to be an incentive to come up with new and useful ideas, and one of the best incentives around is the profit motive. But if an idea can easily be copied without any penalty, then it's hard to make a profit off of it. And thus we have patents.

There are a variety of debates one could have about patents. Do we want new and useful ideas? Is the profit motive a good way to generate them? Is there a way to make enough money off of an idea without patent protection to create the incentive to come up with new and useful ideas?

If the answers to those questions are "yes", "yes", and "no", then we must have patents. At that point, the debate becomes exactly how to implement them. Exactly how much profit must people be allowed to earn in order to give them the incentive to come up with new and useful ideas? Are there situations where people are receiving more profit than is needed to achieve society's goals? Are the administrative costs of the system higher than they have to be?

It seems to me that we need patents, but that perhaps we need to reform the system to make sure that it really does encourage, rather than discourage, innovation AND to make sure that it doesn't allow firms to extract too much profit out of what is by necessity a government created asset.

Yes you're right, this will go on and on as Android is gradually degraded, stripped of its stolen bits.

I never cease to be amazed at the naïve attitude many people have towards IP, especially Fandroids, who seem to think that “innovation” means blatantly copying other peoples’ patents and copyrights and then screaming that its anti-competitive and/or anti-innovation and/or against consumers interests for the rightful owners of the IP to complain or attempt to enforce their legal rights!.

Are these people really so ignorant as not to realize that advanced economies, especially the US, Canada and Western Europe are extremely dependent on defending and exploiting the trillions of dollars they have invested in IP for centuries? Are they not aware that many tens of millions of jobs in these advanced nations are heavily dependent on defending the intellectual rights of their employers and their creative industries such as film, TV program makers, music, authors, publishers, designers etc. etc.? For example more than 50% of Apple's 64,000 employes are in the US.

Many people complain about the Chinese pirates making cheap copies all types of Western designed goods, but by far the biggest culprit appears to be Google who seem to think they have some sort of God given right to copy anybody’s copyright or patent and because they “give’ it away free in some sort of self-acclaimed public service, they should not have to abide by the laws of copyright or patents. In fact Google’s motives are from altruistic. They exploit other peoples IP to generate advertising revenue and profits for themselves, trying to avoid paying the rightful owners their rightful dues.

In the past Google have been found guilty of exploited IP of relatively small fish: publishers, authors, TV program makers etc. But with Android, Google and their gang of copycat OEMs, have taken on three of the richest and most powerful US companies: Microsoft, Oracle and Apple. Thousands of US jobs are at stake and these companies will fight all the way to protect their rights.

Many of the OEMs have already reached licensing agreements with Microsoft agreeing to pay royalties reported to be anywhere between $10 and $25 dollars per phone.

In the case by Oracle, Google were desperate to suppress an incriminating email which appears to prove that Google knew full well that they were stealing IP, but decided go ahead anyway. If the jury find this to be the case Oracle may obtain triple damages, which will amount to many billions of dollars compensation plus royalties going forward, probably another $10 or more per phone.

However, with Apple Google have taken on the richest company of all, who are not at all interested in licensing, but only in stopping Android and their copycat muggers from what they believe to be theft of their look and feel. This will be a long, long series of battles in a global war which is still at its early stages, but which Apple are determined to take to the bitter end.

Bit by bit Android will suffer more and more degradation as more and more of the look and feel which Apple claim that they have stolen will be banned. The win against HTC in the US is an example of this look and feel type patent, which will be enforced in due course against all the Android copycats. HTC say they can get round it, but it will degrade Android's usability and look and feel.

What is interesting in these opening skirmishes is that Samsung’s case appears so weak they have resorted to abusing their FRAND patents as a form of desperate defense. This tactic is likely to backfire badly on them as they and their partners are likely to fall foul of the EU Commission anti-trust laws.

What appears especially significant is that Apple in recent weeks has obtained US approval for numerous new patents involving touch screen and gestures, which are at the heart of the iOS look and feel. Doubtless Apple will use these in new rounds of patent cases against Google and/or their gang of copycats, further degrading Android’s attraction bit by painful bit.

PS So I agree with the Anlayst that these patent wars will result in considerable additional shareholder value for Apple

China Telecom and China Unicom together have about 320 million mobile subscribers

This could be great news for Apple. It seem that apart from the technical aspects of building a special CDMA iPhone for the China market, the main sticking point is to get the Chinese carriers to agree to Apple's requirement not to put they bloatware on top of the iPHone UI.

Many carriers around the world have been resisting this requirement, but most sooner or later have to cave in, because iPhone users are by far the most profitable for carriers. If they don't offer iPhones to their subscribers they lose market share, especially haemorrhaging their most valuable subscribers.

Verizon, tried to stand out against Apple, but eventually had to agree as they lost more and more of their most valuable subscribers to AT&T.

If Apple can offer the iPhone through the two smaller China carriers, China Telecom in addition to China Unicom, this will put more pressure on the biggest carrier, Chine Mobile, to also start selling the iPhone. As it is, it seems that China Mobile already have 10 million iPhones registered on their network!

[...] He believes the litigation will continue well into 2013 in a "long, drawn out process." [...]

The patent war has barely begun. Apple is attacking the handset manufacturers first. Why? Because they're the ones who are making the money from Android. They have the most to lose right now. And they're also blatantly infringing on Apple's "trade dress" patents. They're the low-hanging fruit, and those trials can be processed quickly.

Eventually, after chopping away at the Samsungs, HTCs, and Motorolas, thus establishing legal precedent, Apple could sue Google directly. Oracle might not like it, since their Java infringement suit against Google seems certain to be a good source of revenue for Larry and company. The judge has publicly stated that the any decent trial lawyer could win the case with two existing documents: 1. the email proving that Google's management plotted to copy Java without paying the licensing fee, and 2. the Magna Carta.

The "triple damages" likely to be awarded to Oracle sounds like a lot. That will be worth billions. But if Apple wins an in junction, they could, as the story suggests, take vast market share from Android and add 65% to their market cap. Hundreds of billions. So in the short term after the Java suit (2-3 years) Oracle reaps decent profits. And in the long term after suing Google directly (3+ years) Apple reaps massive profits. Sounds like a good plan.

And that's just in the handset space. Imagine what Apple could do to Android in the pad computing space. So far, the only successful Android pad is the low-end Kindle Fire. It's already being sold at a $10 loss. Doubling that to $20 per unit by extracting a $10 Java licensing fee would be a disaster for Amazon. Add an Apple fee of $10 and Amazon would be selling each Kindle Fire at a $30 loss (all things being equal.) That may be too much to recoup through retail sales.

The patent war has barely begun. Apple is attacking the handset manufacturers first. Why? Because they're the ones who are making the money from Android. They have the most to lose right now. And they're also blatantly infringing on Apple's "trade dress" patents. They're the low-hanging fruit, and those trials can be processed quickly.

Eventually, after chopping away at the Samsungs, HTCs, and Motorolas, thus establishing legal precedent, Apple could sue Google directly. Oracle might not like it, since their Java infringement suit against Google seems certain to be a good source of revenue for Larry and company. The judge has publicly stated that the any decent trial lawyer could win the case with two existing documents: 1. the email proving that Google's management plotted to copy Java without paying the licensing fee, and 2. the Magna Carta.

The "triple damages" likely to be awarded to Oracle sounds like a lot. That will be worth billions. But if Apple wins an in junction, they could, as the story suggests, take vast market share from Android and add 65% to their market cap. Hundreds of billions. So in the short term after the Java suit (2-3 years) Oracle reaps decent profits. And in the long term after suing Google directly (3+ years) Apple reaps massive profits. Sounds like a good plan.

And that's just in the handset space. Imagine what Apple could do to Android in the pad computing space. So far, the only successful Android pad is the low-end Kindle Fire. It's already being sold at a $10 loss. Doubling that to $20 per unit by extracting a $10 Java licensing fee would be a disaster for Amazon. Add an Apple fee of $10 and Amazon would be selling each Kindle Fire at a $30 loss (all things being equal.) That may be too much to recoup through retail sales.

And then a unicorn takes you away towards the sunset in the direction of Paradise.

Yes you're right, this will go on and on as Android is gradually degraded, stripped of its stolen bits.

I never cease to be amazed at the naïve attitude many people have towards IP, especially Fandroids, who seem to think that innovation means blatantly copying other peoples patents and copyrights and then screaming that its anti-competitive and/or anti-innovation and/or against consumers interests for the rightful owners of the IP to complain or attempt to enforce their legal rights!.

Are these people really so ignorant as not to realize that advanced economies, especially the US, Canada and Western Europe are extremely dependent on defending and exploiting the trillions of dollars they have invested in IP for centuries? Are they not aware that many tens of millions of jobs in these advanced nations are heavily dependent on defending the intellectual rights of their employers and their creative industries such as film, TV program makers, music, authors, publishers, designers etc. etc.? For example more than 50% of Apple's 64,000 employes are in the US.

Many people complain about the Chinese pirates making cheap copies all types of Western designed goods, but by far the biggest culprit appears to be Google who seem to think they have some sort of God given right to copy anybodys copyright or patent and because they give it away free in some sort of self-acclaimed public service, they should not have to abide by the laws of copyright or patents. In fact Googles motives are from altruistic. They exploit other peoples IP to generate advertising revenue and profits for themselves, trying to avoid paying the rightful owners their rightful dues.

In the past Google have been found guilty of exploited IP of relatively small fish: publishers, authors, TV program makers etc. But with Android, Google and their gang of copycat OEMs, have taken on three of the richest and most powerful US companies: Microsoft, Oracle and Apple. Thousands of US jobs are at stake and these companies will fight all the way to protect their rights.

Many of the OEMs have already reached licensing agreements with Microsoft agreeing to pay royalties reported to be anywhere between $10 and $25 dollars per phone.

In the case by Oracle, Google were desperate to suppress an incriminating email which appears to prove that Google knew full well that they were stealing IP, but decided go ahead anyway. If the jury find this to be the case Oracle may obtain triple damages, which will amount to many billions of dollars compensation plus royalties going forward, probably another $10 or more per phone.

However, with Apple Google have taken on the richest company of all, who are not at all interested in licensing, but only in stopping Android and their copycat muggers from what they believe to be theft of their look and feel. This will be a long, long series of battles in a global war which is still at its early stages, but which Apple are determined to take to the bitter end.

Bit by bit Android will suffer more and more degradation as more and more of the look and feel which Apple claim that they have stolen will be banned. The win against HTC in the US is an example of this look and feel type patent, which will be enforced in due course against all the Android copycats. HTC say they can get round it, but it will degrade Android's usability and look and feel.

What is interesting in these opening skirmishes is that Samsungs case appears so weak they have resorted to abusing their FRAND patents as a form of desperate defense. This tactic is likely to backfire badly on them as they and their partners are likely to fall foul of the EU Commission anti-trust laws.

What appears especially significant is that Apple in recent weeks has obtained US approval for numerous new patents involving touch screen and gestures, which are at the heart of the iOS look and feel. Doubtless Apple will use these in new rounds of patent cases against Google and/or their gang of copycats, further degrading Androids attraction bit by painful bit.

PS So I agree with the Anlayst that these patent wars will result in considerable additional shareholder value for Apple

Pro-tip: look and feel has only been hedged against Samsung. For obvious reasons.

Pro-tip: look and feel has only been hedged against Samsung. For obvious reasons.

Even that was preliminary. Nothing has been judged final yet. FWIW, Apple is likely going to owe Samsung damages for invalid injunctions according to a couple of sources including our friend at FOSSPatents.

When Steve introduced the Iphone he said that Apple had applied for over 220 patents regarding the phone. The strange thing is that many of the patents have been ratified in the last 6 months and more are on the way.

We all know that Android is a clone and breaks patents. Why else would 9 Android vendors pay protection money to MSFT? (leading to the fun fact that MSFT make more money on Android then Google).

Googles culture is the "internet generation's" culture. Everything is "free". They have proven this attitude many time.

-Take the Java incident. In emails Google admits that they didn't feel it was necessary to get Java license.
-Google have a nasty habit with using Linux code and "clean" the code.
-Google search is the world largest torrent, usenet, warez tracker in the world. Somehow newzbin, thepiratebay and others that provide the same service gets sued (and lost).
-YouTube with almost all content is pirated. Google didn't ask for permission. They settled and pays pennies for each view to the content providers.
-Android: Google bought it and cloned the Iphone.
-Almost all apps on Android are pirated. Evidence: Android have a much larger install base then Iphone. Somehow App-store have 90% of the market. The average Android user/Iphone use have about 180 apps. Google should have over 50% of the App market. Less evidence is that all Android users I know use pirated apps.
-Google app-store are plagued with pirated software. Nothing stops you from taking someone else app and release it as your own.

Pirated software: Google does not care. They want to data mine to sell advertising.
Android vendors have to pay protection fee's. Google does not care. They want to data mine to sell advertising.

Android is the worlds most expensive "free" system. Google have spent 20 billions on buying patents, motorola mobile, Android and developing it. Instead of inventing something own, they choose this strategy. The silly thing is that users and many at Wall Street praise Google for this strategy. Fact is that Google only make 1 billion from Android advertising. It would have been cheaper for Google to buy Google search on other mobile devices like they do with Iphone. Google does not care. They want to data mine to sell advertising.

"Don't be evil"

Just don't copy stuff. Don't pay MSFT money (one of the worst/most evil companies in the world). Innovate. That would drive Apple to do better stuff.

Even that was preliminary. Nothing has been judged final yet. FWIW, Apple is likely going to owe Samsung damages for invalid injunctions according to a couple of sources including our friend at FOSSPatents.

Even if Apple would loose that case (and the idiotic judge said "people understand the difference between Samsung and Apple. Even I have to look closely to see the difference between an Ipad/Galaxy tab) Samsungs damages on lost Galaxy tabs sales are almost zero.

BTW. Why should Apple have to pay? It wasn't Apple that ruled that Samsung could not sell its stuff. It was a judge. Let the judge pay.

I pray that Apple stops dealing with Samsung. Why giving Samsung blueprints to your products, roadmaps + 10 billion dollar? Apple funded many of Samsungs factories. Samsung would not be a leader in NAND Flash if it wasn't for Apple funding their factories in 2005. Apple is Samsung largest customers with 10 billion revenue. How does Samsung react? Lets copy all Apple stuff. That is backstabbing in high level.

Apple: Just buy a foundry / one production line at TSMC. Stop dealing with Sammy. Apple have funded Sharps LCD factory, so soon Apple can drop Samsung LCDs...

I don't think that's obvious. I think that as a society we want there to be an incentive to come up with new and useful ideas, and one of the best incentives around is the profit motive. But if an idea can easily be copied without any penalty, then it's hard to make a profit off of it. And thus we have patents.

There are a variety of debates one could have about patents. Do we want new and useful ideas? Is the profit motive a good way to generate them? Is there a way to make enough money off of an idea without patent protection to create the incentive to come up with new and useful ideas?

If the answers to those questions are "yes", "yes", and "no", then we must have patents. At that point, the debate becomes exactly how to implement them. Exactly how much profit must people be allowed to earn in order to give them the incentive to come up with new and useful ideas? Are there situations where people are receiving more profit than is needed to achieve society's goals? Are the administrative costs of the system higher than they have to be?

It seems to me that we need patents, but that perhaps we need to reform the system to make sure that it really does encourage, rather than discourage, innovation AND to make sure that it doesn't allow firms to extract too much profit out of what is by necessity a government created asset.

The founders thought intellectual property protection was important enough to ensconce it in the Constitution. It's easy to argue that the current system is abused but in truth one person's abuse is another person's protection. Good luck finding a way to balance these interests. We are stuck with this debate forever.

To the particular situation, if it's true that Apple is ultimately going to win big in these intellectual property wars, I think it would be potentially disastrous for Apple to essentially ban Android. Licensing might not be as lucrative in the short run but I believe it's easy to forecast consumer reaction to Apple using its patent muscle to annihilate choice, even if they have the perfect right to do so. They need to tread lightly if they don't want to be thought of as Microsoft, squared.

Okay, so now we have one analyst saying the patent thing could hurt shareholders and another saying it could help shareholders.

Apparently, as it turns out, all analysts are biased, all journalists are biased, all facts can be spun any way you want to to produce the results you desire. I had suspected this for years but was too gullible to accept it. Silly me.

Individuals often draw different conclusions from the same information. This doesn't mean that one of them is stupid, venal, or deceptive. I think you may have learned the wrong lesson.

Because the only other option is for them to create their own unique implementation of the stuff being infringed, and if it was possible for them to do that, they would have already DONE it to avoid this.

While all analysts may be biased -- I think this one has it right for THE REASON you just said; Google either has to retreat from the market or license the technology.

They may have even more trouble with Oracle's JAVA lawsuit.

>> I'm not a fan of these IP wars -- because ultimately, they mean that only the BIG BOYS can play in the sand box. Could you imagine any small company running afoul of some obvious touch interface issues with Google, Apple or Microsoft? Me neither.

Google kind of stabbed Apple in the back -- so to some extent, this is a bit of just deserts. But it's not good in the long-run for a market based on competition (or at least a useful fiction of one).

While all analysts may be biased -- I think this one has it right for THE REASON you just said; Google either has to retreat from the market or license the technology.

They may have even more trouble with Oracle's JAVA lawsuit.

>> I'm not a fan of these IP wars -- because ultimately, they mean that only the BIG BOYS can play in the sand box. Could you imagine any small company running afoul of some obvious touch interface issues with Google, Apple or Microsoft? Me neither.

Google kind of stabbed Apple in the back -- so to some extent, this is a bit of just deserts. But it's not good in the long-run for a market based on competition (or at least a useful fiction of one).

Even if Apple would loose that case (and the idiotic judge said "people understand the difference between Samsung and Apple. Even I have to look closely to see the difference between an Ipad/Galaxy tab) Samsungs damages on lost Galaxy tabs sales are almost zero.

Samsung is making an argument similar to one Apple might make. Even tho the current sales may or may not be significant, it's future sales opportunities lost that they should be compensated for too. Samsung and Apple both recognize that once a customer is invested in a platform, whether Android or iOS, there's a likelihood they remain in that ecosystem. By Apple insisting on a sales injunction under flawed pretenses, they assumed responsibility for damages for current and potentially future lost Samsung revenue from customers becoming iOS buyers instead of Samsung because their tablets weren't available.

Apple may be ordered to pay a surprisingly high amount to Samsung, not that they can't afford it. Mr. Cook probably has enough rattling around in his pocket. The bigger issue is how the press plays it and the public reads it. It doesn't look good for Apple to have any setbacks in litigation with as high-profile and personal they've made it. Nor does it look good for Samsung when minor Apple (temporary) wins hit every tech blog and most newspapers. Even wins can come with some pain attached.

Keep dreaming Apple, by this time next year Android is expected to be at 60 to 70% market share. And iOS will feel like the OS of yesteryear.

Also as a push in the right direction Apple share holders should be more interested in Apple beating Android in market share and not in a legal battle to see what scraps they can get. Because as we learned from MS its unit numbers that speak volumes. And in the mobile world that holds even more.

What this "analyst" fails to realize is that this is if ANY of the Android makers do not win any of their battles. While yes, Apple has a very large patient ammo, it is well known that it is pretty weak in the tech sense. Their patients are very easy to work around. Most of which at least. Now, some of the Android makers IE Motorola and others old some of the core patients on how cell phones work. They haven't even begun using that ammunition yet. That could be the same as the "big one". Apple is trying to fight a war on to many fronts. Android makers while they compete with each other, they also understand that they need to stand by each other in mutual self defense. They all depend on Android and know that if HTC loses a big battle with Apple, they could be next. They have no problems transferring, and "selling" their patients to their other Android counterparts in mutual defense. Apple has no one to lean on except maybe MSFT. I sold my Apple stock last week. I do not want to be around for the fall out. Apple better seek new options instead of "going nuclear" on their competition. No one is alive after that.

What this "analyst" fails to realize is that this is if ANY of the Android makers do not win any of their battles. While yes, Apple has a very large patient ammo, it is well known that it is pretty weak in the tech sense. Their patients are very easy to work around. Most of which at least. Now, some of the Android makers IE Motorola and others old some of the core patients on how cell phones work. They haven't even begun using that ammunition yet. That could be the same as the "big one". Apple is trying to fight a war on to many fronts. Android makers while they compete with each other, they also understand that they need to stand by each other in mutual self defense. They all depend on Android and know that if HTC loses a big battle with Apple, they could be next. They have no problems transferring, and "selling" their patients to their other Android counterparts in mutual defense. Apple has no one to lean on except maybe MSFT. I sold my Apple stock last week. I do not want to be around for the fall out. Apple better seek new options instead of "going nuclear" on their competition. No one is alive after that.

If English is your first language, did you go to high school? Did you graduate?

Well, at least you are capable of generating possible scenarios in your head. Many people can't do that at all. Your scenarios are kind of based on limited information. I dont think the Android guys are mutually helping each other by transferring patents, it doesnt work that way. Your spellchecker keeps saying 'patients' and other junk so its hard to read what you wrote.

Keep reading up on your stocks, though. The best way to make money on them is to understand the scenario behind the companies' strategies. I know this from personal experience.

Please read widely, from many sources. You will do well, once you get some more plausible information from more sites than you are reading now, and improve your English.

What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto

Oracle might not like it, since their Java infringement suit against Google seems certain to be a good source of revenue for Larry and company. The judge has publicly stated that the any decent trial lawyer could win the case with two existing documents: 1. the email proving that Google's management plotted to copy Java without paying the licensing fee, and 2. the Magna Carta.

The "triple damages" likely to be awarded to Oracle sounds like a lot. . .
So in the short term after the Java suit (2-3 years) Oracle reaps decent profits. And in the long term after suing Google directly (3+ years) Apple reaps massive profits. Sounds like a good plan.

"Larry" appears so greedy in the method he's trying to use to fluff damages that the trial judge has once again thrown out another of the estimated damage reports. If Oracle wants to try again (for the third time) to establish a realistic basis for damages they risk further delaying the trial, perhaps extending into 2013. No big deal right? Justice will eventually be served. . . Except that there might not be any damages after the USPO finishes with invalidating Oracle patent claims against Google. So far they're dropping like flies.

I'll be surprised if Oracle continues with attempting a big payday since they haven't found any legitimate way to show those huge damages they want, and attempting a third, fourth, fifth or sixth time just allows a bigger window to maybe dispose of the patents altogether. Google may have violated some Oracle IP, but so far it looks far from a slam-dunk.

Groklaw has a more realistic and thorough coverage of the Oracle/Google suit than FOSSPatents if you'd like to stay up-to-date with the latest. They also cover the Microsoft/Barnes & Noble suit pretty well, something Florian Mueller looks to be avoiding as much as possible.http://www.groklaw.net/

Apple needs to stop the lawsuits, or at the very least, go for royalties and license technology. If any major handset maker were to actually get banned, the backlash from consumers and telecoms would be huge. When Samsung products were temporarily banned from certain countries, it increased demand, even though the supply was never disrupted long enough to lose sales.

Really? People would be upset that a product designed to steal as much intellectual property as possible was taken off the market? People would be upset that knockoffs have no place in society?

First off, Apple has also borrowed from Android (notification center, cloud sync, full multitasking - were things Android had first). Second, consumers like competition and choice - Android is different enough in funtion that few consumers will see it as a 'knock-off'. And yes, consumers don't like big, bad corporations - look at how much love Microsoft gets.

Apple is big now, but tech moves quickly, things can change. Apple would do much better to consolidate their position, make a 4+ inch 'flagship' iPhone in addition to the 3.5 inch models, increase functionality (maybe widgets? Office suite? Turn by turn navigation included? LTE?), and drop the lawsuits.

No judge will honestly give Apple a settlement of more than a billion, and an outright sales ban is easy to circumvent, plus gives bad press. Licensing technology is the best outcome, and even then it would be a tiny portion of Apple's revenue. Let's say an impossible scenario - they ban all Android devices from the world forever by the end of the year- then there's going to be a lot of pissed off customers, telecoms (since profit margins for the retailer are higher on Android handsets), and a Windows 8 PC/Phone ecosystem backed by more or less the entire rest of the industry waiting to snatch customers.

Apple would do much better to maintain their image, take the high road, and simply compete in an open marketplace, continuing their current momentum.